Evaluator’s Overview

1. MSP and Scoring Rubric Evaluator’s Overview Title II, Part B Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) Program

2. Title II, Part B MSP Overview Program Overview • The Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) projects (authorized in ESEA: Title II, Part B [Section 2201-2203] are intended to enhance the capacity of local teachers to enact curricula reforms that produce higher student achievement in mathematics and science. • A partnership must be composed of a local school district and the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty at a 4 year institution of higher education.

3. MSP Program Overarching Goals • To provide activities that are supported by scientifically based research and designed to deepen mathematics and science teachers’ content knowledge and knowledge of how students learn a particular content; • To improve the quality and coherence of the learning experiences for teachers through high-quality professional development; • To link teachers’ opportunity to learn with opportunity to implement classroom instruction; • To promote sustainable relationships between institutions of higher education and K-12 schools that strengthen reform efforts in K-12 education.

4. MSP Program Overarching Goals • To focus on the education of mathematics and science teachers as a process that continuously stimulates teachers’ intellectual growth and upgrades teachers’ knowledge and skills. • To bring mathematics and science teachers in schools together with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to increase the subject matter knowledge of those teachers and improve such teachers’ teaching skills through the use of sophisticated tools and work space, computing facilities, libraries, and other resources that institutions of higher education are better able to provide than the K-12 schools.

5. Scoring Rubric Overview There are twelve areas in which points are awarded: • Abstract (10 points) • Comprehensive Needs Assessment (10 points) • Evidence-based Research (10 points) • Plan of Work (10 points) • Alignment with ND Mathematics Content Standards and ND Science Content and Achievement Standards (20 points) • Management Capability (10 points) • Sustainability (10 points) • Partners Contributions and Commitments (10 points) • Research, Accountability and Evaluation (10 points) • Measurable Goals (20 points) • Reporting (10 points) • Proposed Budget (20 points) Total Points Possible: 150

6. Abstract (10 Points) The abstract must include a description of: • the project’s vision; • measurable goals and activities, and key features of the project; and • the desired outcome(s)

7. Comprehensive Needs Assessment(10 Points) The needs assessment must include: • Evidence of the utilization of the North Dakota State Assessment data. Other data should also be utilized with the NDSA. • This information should contain aggregated and disaggregated information from the specific LEA’s involved in the partnership.

8. Aggregated data Disaggregated Data

9. Comprehensive Needs Assessment, cont. • The applicant clearly outlined the prioritized needs of the assessment.

10. Plan of Work(10 Points) • Proposal provided a detailed plan of working inclusive of: • Timeline • Resources utilized • Duration of summer institutes and project • Number of participants involved • Responsibilities of those involved

11. Alignment with ND Mathematics Content Standards and ND Science Content and Achievement Standards(20 Points) • There must be a definable link between proposed professional development and applicable state academic standard(s)

12. Mathematics Achievement Standards • Grade 4 http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/perform/perf4.pdf • Grade 8 http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/perform/perf8.pdf • Grade 12 http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/perform/perf12.pdf

13. Science Standards • Science http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/perform/science.pdf

14. Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS) • The Next Generation Science Standards were developed through a collaborative, state-led process. These standards emphasize critical thinking and communication skills. • North Dakota has assembled a team of K-12 educators to evaluate the current standards and the possible adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards. For this reason, the NGSS were included in the RFP as a possible source of standards to address in the proposal. These standards can be found at http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards-dci.

15. Management Capability(10 Points) • The proposal clearly demonstrates the team’s capability of managing the project, organizing the work and meeting a deadline.

16. Sustainability(10 Points) • The proposal should provide clear evidence on how the project can be sustained beyond the grant period. • How will the impact on teacher content knowledge be sustained? • How will the leadership that is developed through the grant cycle be sustained after the grant has ended? • How does the proposal ensure that the impact on student achievement will be sustained after the grant cycle?

17. Partners’ Contributions and Commitments(10 Points) • Documentation of partner agreements are included. • Agreements identify the specific roles of each partner.

18. Research, Accountability and Evaluation(10 Points) • Application provided an evaluation and accountability plan for activities of the project that included specific measurable goals in order to assess the impact of activities. • The proposal demonstrated specific measurable goals focused on increasing the number of STEM teachers who participate in content-based professional development activities.

19. Definition: Evidence-Based Research Evidence-Based Research: Section 9101(37) of ESEA, as amended by NCLB, defines scientifically based research as “research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.”

20. Evidence Based-Research (cont’d) Evidence Based-Research: • Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; • Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; • Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; • Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;

21. Evidence-Based Research (cont’d) • Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and • Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. (Note: practitioner journals or education magazines are not the same as peer-reviewed academic journals).

22. Measurable Goals(20 Points) • Proposal demonstrated specific measurable goals focused on improved student academic achievement.

23. Measurable Goals (Cont’d) 5 Components of a Measurable Goal • Specific – What do you want to measure? • Measurable – How will the goal be measured? • Attainable – Is it a reachable goal? • Results-orientated – How will the goal look when it is reached • Time-Bound – what is the timeline for reaching the goal?

24. Reporting(10 Points) • There must be assurances included in the proposal that quarterly financial reports will be made. • There must be assurances that report quarterly on progress related to meeting the specific goals of the project are made. • There must be an assurance that the applicant will provide annual reports to State and DOE

25. Available Funding • The estimated funding for all grants combined is $939,071.00

26. Proposed Budget(20 Points) • A detailed budget must be included and must list: • Direct costs • Indirect costs • In-kind contributions • Funding sources • Salaries • Other justifiable program administration costs • Other justifiable items include: • Tuition and book fee waivers • Graduate credits • Registration payments • Per diems • Other justifiable program administration costs

27. Thank You